Showing posts with label gary barlow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gary barlow. Show all posts

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

REVIEW: The Jubilee Concert

Clearly, if my Twitter timeline is to be believed, there were royalists who watches a different concert to the utter shambles I witnessed yesterday evening. And I hope some of those spouting pro-monarchist platitudes and "proud to be British" nonsense have woken with a guilty feeling and some common sense once their hangovers have passed.



Yes, there were a few reasonable acts: Stevie Wonder and Kylie Minogue clearly stole the show, while Madness did well up on the roof of Buck House despite the poor sound engineering that blighted many acts. Tom Jones, with his reptilian skin clearly shined for the occasion, was surprisingly ok and Ed was blandly alright. Beyond that few did their careers any good and the likes of Annie Lennox, JLS and Jessie J may as well not have bothered.

But, oh dear, there were some embarrassing and career-ending performances to mark Luz Windsor's 60 years of lauding over us ordinary mortals, doing very little and taking lots of money from the poor.

Elton John clearly thought he was auditioning for a new musical about the Elephant Man with awful annunciation and a dreadful singing performance. Paul McCartney did what he always does by making everyone realise he was only ever the third most talented Beatle (and only there because of Ringo's general ineptitude). Shirley Bassey was as abominable as ever. Cheryl Cole proved she is a dancer and not a singer - and that she is totally lost without autotune (how can she ever "mentor" contestants on a talent show after this evening?).

As for the Take That boys: Gary Barlow showed he is a sycophantic dullard without any sense of occasion. Robbie Williams simply scattered the ashes of his career around the foot of Queen Victoria's statue.

Astonishingly Ed Sheeran's bland musical wallpaper was one of the stand out performances of the night - that's how bad things got!

One of the more bizarre acts, amongst an evening of underperformances was Grace Jones (yes, really) singing her hit from over 20 years ago whilst hula-hooping for the duration!

The running order was just bizarre. Each time the party atmosphere was picked up there'd be a classical act to dissipate the moment and lose the audience. I gave nothing against classical musicians, obviously, but an event that includes pop, rock and classical all together needs careful organisation, not just a random order (if it wasn't random there is something even more wrong with Barlow's artistic judgement than previously thought).

Cliff Richard was simply excruciating, as we're most of the comedians who provided links - Miranda Hart proved once more that she is just not funny, as did Peter Kay. Rob Brydon was cringeworthy and Jimmy Carr should have known better (let's hope the size of the cheque made it worth it eh Jim?). The worst was Lenny Henry who, having got Rolf Harris to pad for time by singing "Two Little Boys" decided to cut him short before the final chorus - just as the crowd were getting behind him and joining in the impromptu performance.

Is it written into Lenny Henry's contract that wherever he performs he has to point out to everyone that he's black? It does seem to be so.

The biggest let down has, of course, been well advertised (with its own primer one documentary last night) - "Sing" was co-written by Gary Barlow and Andrew Lloyd Webber and featured performances from musicians from the Commonwealth as well as the ghastly Military Wives Choir - Gareth Malone, j'accuse! Even with a huge assortment if global talents Barlow managed to make it all sound like a treacly non-event unworthy if a school fete let alone a Diamond Jubilee.

The whole event was a shameless overblown nonsense that, at a time of national austerity, must have a few budgets very stretched.

The dull facade of Buck House was used to good effect as a screen for some effective projections - though they were rather A-level Media Studies in imagination.

And then there was Charlie Windsor's speech. Truly diabolical, and yet many on Twitter thought it great. I do hope those people watch it again when sober to see just how ridiculous it was.

The whole Jubilee weekend has been one big, expensive con trick. It's deflected the proles from the real issues in this country and the wider world, and it's been done to garner support for the anachronism that is monarchy.

Maybe they're just setting the bar really low for the Olympic Games ceremonies? Because almost anything will be better than this evening's parade of the undead.

I do hope we never see the likes of this event ever again. Or if we do it is for something worthwhile - nit just an old lady living a privileged existence at vast economic, social and moral cost to the rest of us.

Happy Jubilee! May it be the last!

Friday, 18 May 2012

Gary Barlow & Andrew Lloyd Webber's official Jubilee song

It's a dream pairing: top songwriters Gary Barlow and Andre Lloyd Webber combining to write a song together. Whatever they produce is almost certainly guaranteed to be a number one hit.

But...

Isn't it awful?

Click here to watch the video.

The lyrics aren't that bad but the hook? "SI-I-I-I-NG" Is it a hook? It's a sort of collective whine.

It's even got the ghastly "Army Wives" on it. *shudder*

It takes bland to a new low.

And no, it's not because I'm opposed to the monarchy and won't be celebrating the jubilee that I dislike it. It's just a bad song.

If there was to be a communal sing song of it the chorus is more likely to sound like a herd if sick cows.

A disappointing song to mark a disappointing and idiotic institution. Maybe it is a match made in heaven?

Monday, 24 October 2011

MUSIC: 2011 Q Awards - the winners

  • Hall of Fame Award - Queen
    • Q's Greatest Act Of The Last 25 Years - U2


    Tuesday, 18 October 2011

    OPINION: The Second Reformation

    Little did Martin Luther suspect that, when he wrote The Ninety-Five Theses in 1517 he'd be setting a trend for has-been and washed up groups from the 1990s to give things another go in the Noughties and 2010s.

    Yes, when the musical history of the beginning of the 21st Century comes to be written it will, I suggest, be called the Second Reformation.

    This week alone we've had announcements from Steps and The Stone Roses - two stellar groups from opposite ends of the pop rainbow.

    The Steps reunion and comeback has been manufactured via a tortuous reality programme on Sky Living.



    I really don't understand the point of so-called "reality television programmes, like Steps Reunion when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Why else would they bother? They all earnt a small fortune - take a look at "H"'s house!

    But I guess some of that wealth has dwindled and they think they can get another few big pay days before they, inevitably, split again.

    Cynical? Moi?

    Why does ANY group reform? Isn't it always about the pay cheque?

    Today The Stone Roses, a seminal group from the Madchester movement of the early 90s, has been outlining their plans for two "big events" next summer preceding a world tour. The Stone Roses have always been he darlings of the music press - tantrums were considered all part of "artistic differences" and bad behaviour was because they were temperamental artists.

    Only two years ago John Squire, of The Stone Roses even produced an artwork stating, quite categorically, that I have no desire whatsoever to desicrate the grave of the seminal Manchester pop group The Stone Roses. Two years on and there is his in a press conference joining with Ian Brown et al announcing future plans.



    Was he lying back in 2009? Is his heart not in it now? What's happened to change his mind so dramatically?

    Ironically The Stone Roses have already had an album released called Second Coming , so is this the Third Coming?

    Of course, unlike Steps, The Stone Roses are promising new material. Quite how much and whether it is any good has yet to be seen. I'm not convinced that the seminal group will be able to recreate the success of their former incarnation and will end up simply re-working their hits - after all, isn't that what the punters want?

    With many reunions/Greatest Hits tours that is all that the fans want. They want one final, or two final, chances to see their idols live, they want one final album with a few new songs. They want to re-live their teenage years.

    Some groups, of course, would find a reunion tricky - The Beatles and The Doors clearly have a few insurmountable problems for a proper reunion! Queen have, of course, managed a reunion of sorts despite the loss of their iconic lead singer and 2Pac somehow still churns out songs from beyond the grave - ingenious!

    At the same time, it's only a matter of a couple of years before Oasis are back together!

    The big reunion, one that might never happen, of course, is ABBA. Wouldn't it be great to have Benny and Bjorn weave their musical magic one more time with Agnetha and Anna-Frid?



    Some groups have come back stronger than before. The best recent examples of this have to be Blur whose live performances built on their earlier successes as well as the extra-Blur work of its members, and Take That who have, mostly thanks to the maturing songwriting talents of Gary Barlow and a live show budget that must be the envy of many small nations, come back stronger than their 1990s selves.

    But for every Blur, Take That and, yes, even Steps (their latest greatest hits album entered the charts at Number One last Sunday) there are the others who fall by the way side - they saw a nice injection of money into their bank accounts, a pension top-up that just didn't happen.

    The Stone Roses and Steps are both reforming for one thing and one thing only - they should just be honest about it, but let's hope that someday soon, the music industry will invest in new talent - because without new talent who will we have to reform in 2030?